Second and third trimester fetal ultrasound population screening for risks of preterm birth and small-size and large-size for gestational age at birth: a population-based prospective cohort study


Journal

BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 04 2020
Historique:
received: 30 09 2019
accepted: 20 02 2020
entrez: 8 4 2020
pubmed: 8 4 2020
medline: 23 9 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Preterm birth, small size for gestational age (SGA) and large size for gestational age (LGA) at birth are major risk factors for neonatal and long-term morbidity and mortality. It is unclear which periods of pregnancy are optimal for ultrasound screening to identify fetuses at risk of preterm birth, SGA or LGA at birth. We aimed to examine whether single or combined second and third trimester ultrasound in addition to maternal characteristics at the start of pregnancy are optimal to detect fetuses at risk for preterm birth, SGA and LGA. In a prospective population-based cohort among 7677 pregnant women, we measured second and third trimester estimated fetal weight (EFW), and uterine artery pulsatility and umbilical artery resistance indices as placenta flow measures. Screen positive was considered as EFW or placenta flow measure < 10th or > 90th percentile. Information about maternal age, body mass index, ethnicity, parity, smoking, fetal sex and birth outcomes was available from questionnaires and medical records. Screening performance was assessed via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) along with sensitivity at different false-positive rates. Maternal characteristics only and in combination with second trimester EFW had a moderate performance for screening for each adverse birth outcome. Screening performance improved by adding third trimester EFW to the maternal characteristics (AUCs for preterm birth 0.64 (95%CI 0.61 to 0.67); SGA 0.79 (95%CI 0.78 to 0.81); LGA 0.76 (95%CI 0.75; 0.78)). Adding third trimester placenta measures to this model improved only screening for risk of preterm birth (AUC 0.72 (95%CI 0.66 to 0.77) with sensitivity 37% at specificity 90%) and SGA (AUC 0.83 (95%CI 0.81 to 0.86) with sensitivity 55% at specificity 90%). Combining second and third trimester fetal and placental ultrasound did not lead to a better performance as compared to using only third trimester results. Combining single third trimester fetal and placental ultrasound results with maternal characteristics has the best screening performance for risks of preterm birth, SGA and LGA. As compared to second trimester screening, third trimester screening may double the detection of fetuses at risk of common adverse birth outcomes.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Preterm birth, small size for gestational age (SGA) and large size for gestational age (LGA) at birth are major risk factors for neonatal and long-term morbidity and mortality. It is unclear which periods of pregnancy are optimal for ultrasound screening to identify fetuses at risk of preterm birth, SGA or LGA at birth. We aimed to examine whether single or combined second and third trimester ultrasound in addition to maternal characteristics at the start of pregnancy are optimal to detect fetuses at risk for preterm birth, SGA and LGA.
METHODS
In a prospective population-based cohort among 7677 pregnant women, we measured second and third trimester estimated fetal weight (EFW), and uterine artery pulsatility and umbilical artery resistance indices as placenta flow measures. Screen positive was considered as EFW or placenta flow measure < 10th or > 90th percentile. Information about maternal age, body mass index, ethnicity, parity, smoking, fetal sex and birth outcomes was available from questionnaires and medical records. Screening performance was assessed via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) along with sensitivity at different false-positive rates.
RESULTS
Maternal characteristics only and in combination with second trimester EFW had a moderate performance for screening for each adverse birth outcome. Screening performance improved by adding third trimester EFW to the maternal characteristics (AUCs for preterm birth 0.64 (95%CI 0.61 to 0.67); SGA 0.79 (95%CI 0.78 to 0.81); LGA 0.76 (95%CI 0.75; 0.78)). Adding third trimester placenta measures to this model improved only screening for risk of preterm birth (AUC 0.72 (95%CI 0.66 to 0.77) with sensitivity 37% at specificity 90%) and SGA (AUC 0.83 (95%CI 0.81 to 0.86) with sensitivity 55% at specificity 90%). Combining second and third trimester fetal and placental ultrasound did not lead to a better performance as compared to using only third trimester results.
CONCLUSIONS
Combining single third trimester fetal and placental ultrasound results with maternal characteristics has the best screening performance for risks of preterm birth, SGA and LGA. As compared to second trimester screening, third trimester screening may double the detection of fetuses at risk of common adverse birth outcomes.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32252740
doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01540-x
pii: 10.1186/s12916-020-01540-x
pmc: PMC7137302
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

63

Subventions

Organisme : European Research Council
ID : ERC-2014-CoG-648916
Pays : International
Organisme : Diabetes Fonds
ID : 2017.81.002
Pays : International
Organisme : Hartstichting
ID : 2017T013
Pays : International
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 543003109
Pays : International

Références

Eur J Epidemiol. 2012 Sep;27(9):739-56
pubmed: 23086283
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Jun;49(2):257-69
pubmed: 16721105
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Feb;119(2 Pt 1):256-61
pubmed: 22270276
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 13;6:CD007529
pubmed: 28613398
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;113(2 Pt 1):451-61
pubmed: 19155920
Prenat Diagn. 2013 Oct;33(10):915-20
pubmed: 23703542
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9
pubmed: 18313558
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Feb 1;151(3):333-7
pubmed: 3881966
Ann Nutr Metab. 2014;65(2-3):149-55
pubmed: 25413653
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013 May;21(5):1046-55
pubmed: 23784909
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;53(1):55-61
pubmed: 29573501
Hypertension. 2014 Aug;64(2):266-74
pubmed: 24866145
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 1;12(6):e0178484
pubmed: 28570613
Lancet. 2015 Jun 27;385(9987):2600-5
pubmed: 25863654
Lancet. 2015 Nov 21;386(10008):2089-2097
pubmed: 26360240
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2008 Jul 16;8:25
pubmed: 18627638
Am J Epidemiol. 2013 Apr 15;177(8):743-54
pubmed: 23479346
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 29;(6):CD001451
pubmed: 26121659
Eur J Epidemiol. 2006;21(6):475-84
pubmed: 16826450
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Aug;50(2):156-166
pubmed: 27935148
Semin Perinatol. 2008 Jun;32(3):219-24
pubmed: 18482625
N Engl J Med. 2008 Jul 3;359(1):61-73
pubmed: 18596274
Br J Anaesth. 2001 Jun;86(6):822-7
pubmed: 11573590
Circulation. 2013 Nov 12;128(20):2202-10
pubmed: 24135069
Semin Perinatol. 2010 Dec;34(6):408-15
pubmed: 21094415
BJOG. 2015 Mar;122(4):518-27
pubmed: 25346493
Lancet. 2013 Aug 3;382(9890):417-425
pubmed: 23746775
J Perinat Med. 2010 May;38(3):311-8
pubmed: 20121528
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 1;11(11):e0164161
pubmed: 27802270
BMC Med. 2019 Oct 17;17(1):186
pubmed: 31619225
J Ultrasound Med. 2003 Apr;22(4):347-56; quiz 357-8
pubmed: 12693618
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Apr;31(4):388-96
pubmed: 18348183
Acta Paediatr Scand. 1991 Aug-Sep;80(8-9):756-62
pubmed: 1957592
Prenat Diagn. 2014 Aug;34(8):759-64
pubmed: 24659438
Ann Epidemiol. 2013 Jul;23(7):435-40
pubmed: 23726822
BJOG. 2011 Mar;118(4):500-9
pubmed: 21244614
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Apr;204(4):288-300
pubmed: 21215383
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Aug;43(4):1140-53
pubmed: 24603318
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Mar;25(3):258-64
pubmed: 15717289
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002 Sep;81(9):846-51
pubmed: 12225300
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013 Feb;166(2):133-8
pubmed: 23122032

Auteurs

Jan S Erkamp (JS)

The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Paediatrics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Ellis Voerman (E)

The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Paediatrics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Eric A P Steegers (EAP)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Annemarie G M G J Mulders (AGMGJ)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Irwin K M Reiss (IKM)

The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Paediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Liesbeth Duijts (L)

The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Paediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Paediatrics, Division of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Vincent W V Jaddoe (VWV)

The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Paediatrics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Romy Gaillard (R)

The Generation R Study Group, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. r.gaillard@erasmusmc.nl.
Department of Paediatrics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. r.gaillard@erasmusmc.nl.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH